Republican Policies Will Cause "Unemployment In The Teens... For A Decade Or More."

[Ton80]

You seem to be the only one ascribing it to other than those who actually shoved it down our throats - the same ilk who have been trying to implement such a plan since the early part of the 20th century - Democrats; progressives, liberals - leftists.

Do you believe you were victimized by those who shoved a heath care plan down your throat?

 

[Ringo84]

his "divide and conquer" agenda pitting rich against poor, black against white, liberals against conservatives and stirring it all up while he takes another vacation or starts another war or plays another round of golf until there's palpable hate in this nation, we are all Americans.

We need to UNITE, not separate.

Please. This from an apparent member of a party that's trying to pit Americans against people who work for a living: teachers, firefighters, policemen, and the poor.

Get the heck out of the way and then find out.

Oh...so it's the Democrats' fault that Republicans haven't done anything about jobs?

Instead, you focus on what might have happened and assert therefore that what has happened is therefore somehow a "good" thing.

You keep saying this, but we know what would have happened had there not been a stimulus! Imagine how much of a pounding our economy would have taken if the "big three" auto companies had not been bailed out. That's a major part of our economy which would have been lost - indefinitely, if not permanently. Add to that a huge tick in unemployment from millions of laid-off auto workers, and you have a much worse mess than we're currently facing.

The auto bailouts saved us from that mess. And the stimulus, for its part, helped the states invest in infrastructure and kept essential personnel - teachers, firefighters, etc - working. This is not unknowable information. We saved millions of jobs and a chunk of our economy....thanks to that "ebil Socialist" Obama!

I'm still waiting for you to refute any of that. All you've done so far is claim that I'm participating in "specious speculation".
Ringo

 

[acropolis]

austerity measured worked wonders for the Weimer Republic i'm sure they'll work just as well in the US.

 

[IbrahimFahim]

Apparently you take exception to something I/we said. Rather than make us guess what that is, perhaps you could enlighten us?

I would like you to support your assertions with valid economic understanding and theory.

 

[Shesapeach]

Please. This from an apparent member of a party that's trying to pit Americans against people who work for a living: teachers, firefighters, policemen, and the poor.

LOL! I'm a teacher and my husband is a policeman. Try again, dude.

Oh...so it's the Democrats' fault that Republicans haven't done anything about jobs?

The Democrats were in complete control of government for two full years and all they did was spend us into oblivion. They could've created jobs and gotten this nation running if they had been fiscally responsible. Instead, they paid off the people who got them into office.

You keep saying this, but we know what would have happened had there not been a stimulus! Imagine how much of a pounding our economy would have taken if the "big three" auto companies had not been bailed out. That's a major part of our economy which would have been lost - indefinitely, if not permanently. Add to that a huge tick in unemployment from millions of laid-off auto workers, and you have a much worse mess than we're currently facing.

Pruning works, ringo. You don't prop up a limb that is going to kill the tree. You cut it off and let new growth happen.

The auto bailouts saved us from that mess. And the stimulus, for its part, helped the states invest in infrastructure and kept essential personnel - teachers, firefighters, etc - working. This is not unknowable information. We saved millions of jobs and a chunk of our economy....thanks to that "ebil Socialist" Obama!

Wrong again! You are buying into the PMSNBC talking points.

 

[Ringo84]

LOL! I'm a teacher and my husband is a policeman. Try again, dude.

Then I suggest that you're on the wrong side.

spend us into oblivion. They could've created jobs and gotten this nation running if they had been fiscally responsible. Instead, they paid off the people who got them into office.

Spending which kept vital personnel in jobs and saved our economy from sinking even lower.

Pruning works, ringo. You don't prop up a limb that is going to kill the tree. You cut it off and let new growth happen.

OK...you let the auto companies fail. How big a part of our economy is now permanently gone? How many millions of workers are out of a job? The auto bailouts weren't popular, but they were necessary to keep us out of a depression.

That's not "talking points". That's the obvious truth - which I have yet to see anyone refute.
Ringo

 

[EdwinWillers]

Please. This from an apparent member of a party that's trying to pit Americans against people who work for a living: teachers, firefighters, policemen, and the poor.

Please indeed. This from a member of the party whose ONLY concern for people who work for a living is replacing "a living" with "the State."

Oh...so it's the Democrats' fault that Republicans haven't done anything about jobs?

DARN STRAIGHT it's the Democrat's fault that Democrats have done nothing - nada - zilch - zip - nichts - niente - squat about jobs. Why would they? The more people they can get on unemployment, on food stamps, on welfare, entirely dependent on them, the longer, the more dependents they have to vote for them (which, if you look at your base...).

You keep saying this, but we know what would have happened had there not been a stimulus! Imagine how much of a pounding our economy would have taken if the "big three" auto companies had not been bailed out. That's a major part of our economy which would have been lost - indefinitely, if not permanently. Add to that a huge tick in unemployment from millions of laid-off auto workers, and you have a much worse mess than we're currently facing.

I keep saying it because it's true and you keep saying just the opposite - purely imagining what would happen to the economy if the federal government didn't come in and "rescue" it.

Your premise is laughable on its face. I keep challenging it because NO, you DON'T KNOW what would have happened. You don't know that a major part of our economy would have been lost, let alone indefinitely, let alone permanently. You don't know ANY of that. They're all warrant-less assertions fabricated purely to scare people.

It's pure speculation, pure fiction, the stuff that makes for a wonderful Hollywood script or union organizing tract.

The auto bailouts saved us from that mess. And the stimulus, for its part, helped the states invest in infrastructure and kept essential personnel - teachers, firefighters, etc - working. This is not unknowable information. We saved millions of jobs and a chunk of our economy....thanks to that "ebil Socialist" Obama!

I'm still waiting for you to refute any of that. All you've done so far is claim that I'm participating in "specious speculation".
Ringo

Refute WHAT? Predictions?? Prophesy? Partisan prognostication? Demagogic clairvoyance? [Mis]fortune telling?

Sheesh, for one who imagines themself so capable of finding strawmen in other people's arguments, you sure have an uncanny inability to see the non-existence of warrant for your own.

Ok, you think your auguries unassailable, show me your data that proves them true. Show me your facts that prove what might have happened, could have happened.

Show me, prove me wrong regarding what "would have happened if."

Or spare us all the charade and admit the truth, that you have no idea, that it is indeed specious, empty speculation to imagine what would have happened if.

I know you can't do the former and sadly, I don't think you're willing to do the latter. Of course, you can try to prove me wrong there too; either one would stop this nonsense if you've an interest in that.

 

[IbrahimFahim]

I would like you to support your assertions with valid economic understanding and theory.

Bumping this for Edwin.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Apparently you take exception to something I/we said. Rather than make us guess what that is, perhaps you could enlighten us?

Bumping this for Ibrahim.

 

[IbrahimFahim]

Bumping this for Ibrahim.

You could start here...

"You tell me.

There's not one thing the left does economically that helps the economy, indeed everything they espouse is proven detrimental to the economy - from massive entitlement spending (pandering for votes), to nationalized healthcare, to the Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac debacle that is singularly one of the primary reasons our economy took the dive it did. Keynesian economics is a proven disaster - as is every nation on the face of the planet, now and in times past who has attempted leftist economic micromanagement and central planning, massive government growth and allowed it to run its natural course sans any serious capitalist influences.

All one has to do is look at what Obama and his minions have been doing since he took office - and the results - to know it doesn't work, can't work, and never will work.

What person in his right mind would espouse such proven disastrous policies - unless that person had some ulterior motive? I cannot credit the left for being so totally naive and ignorant, and stupid as to espouse the sort of crap they do. Given that, one has to ask the obvious... why embark on policies you KNOW won't do as propagandized?"

As an aside, have you actually read the actual book Atlas Shrugged? Not the wikipedia page, or watched the reportedly terrible movie, but trudged through the whole book?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Keynesian economics is a proven disaster - as is every nation on the face of the planet, now and in times past who has attempted leftist economic micromanagement and central planning, massive government growth and allowed it to run its natural course sans any serious capitalist influences.

No economic theory is perfect, and all will at some point in their implementation produce unwanted effects; not least of all free market fundamentalism.

What person in his right mind would espouse such proven disastrous policies - unless that person had some ulterior motive? I cannot credit the left for being so totally naive and ignorant, and stupid as to espouse the sort of crap they do. Given that, one has to ask the obvious... why embark on policies you KNOW won't do as propagandized?

And again with the mind-reading.... Surely no one would believe that! They must have some ulterior, perhaps nefarious, intention.

 

[Ringo84]

DARN STRAIGHT it's the Democrat's fault that Democrats have done nothing - nada - zilch - zip - nichts - niente - squat about jobs. Why would they? The more people they can get on unemployment, on food stamps, on welfare, entirely dependent on them, the longer, the more dependents they have to vote for them (which, if you look at your base...).

That's hilarious - "It's your fault we haven't done anything we promised to do!"

I keep saying it because it's true

No...it isn't true.

This is not rocket science. What do you think would have been the economic effect of the country's biggest automakers having to cash it in? What do you think would have been the effect on unemployment? What would have been the effect on unemployment had states been unable to continue hiring firefighters and teachers?

You don't need a PhD in economics to figure this out.

It's pure speculation, pure fiction, the stuff that makes for a wonderful Hollywood script or union organizing tract.

Refute WHAT? Predictions?? Prophesy? Partisan prognostication? Demagogic clairvoyance? [Mis]fortune telling?

Sheesh, for one who imagines themself so capable of finding strawmen in other people's arguments, you sure have an uncanny inability to see the non-existence of warrant for your own.

Ok, you think your auguries unassailable, show me your data that proves them true. Show me your facts that prove what might have happened, could have happened.

Show me, prove me wrong regarding what "would have happened if."

Or spare us all the charade and admit the truth, that you have no idea, that it is indeed specious, empty speculation to imagine what would have happened if.

I know you can't do the former and sadly, I don't think you're willing to do the latter. Of course, you can try to prove me wrong there too; either one would stop this nonsense if you've an interest in that.

I've already posted CBO studies about the stimulus, and you ignored it.

One year after the stimulus, several independent macroeconomic firms including Moody's and IHS Global Insight estimated that the stimulus saved or created 1.6 to 1.8 million jobs and forecasted a total impact of 2.5 million jobs saved by the time the stimulus is completed.[79] The Congressional Budget Office considered these estimates conservative.[80] The CBO estimated according to its model 2.1 million jobs saved in the last quarter of 2009, boosting the economy by up to 3.5 percent and lowering the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent.[81] The CBO projected that the package would have an even greater impact in 2010.[81] The CBO also said, "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."[82] The CBO's report on the first quarter of 2010 showed a continued positive effect, with an employment gain in that quarter of up to 2.8 million and a GDP boost of up to 4.2 percent.

(Emphasis mine)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Job Loss Chart:

Now I suppose you'll tell me that the CBO and Moody's are engaging in "speculation"? Or will the next argument be that the CBO is "partisan"?

You haven't shown me that I'm wrong about anything I've posted. You've simply claimed that I'm engaging in "speculation" (which is clearly false).
Ringo

 

[oldbetang]

That's hilarious - "It's your fault we haven't done anything we promised to do!"



No...it isn't true.

This is not rocket science. What do you think would have been the economic effect of the country's biggest automakers having to cash it in? What do you think would have been the effect on unemployment? What would have been the effect on unemployment had states been unable to continue hiring firefighters and teachers?

You don't need a PhD in economics to figure this out.



I've already posted CBO studies about the stimulus, and you ignored it.



(Emphasis mine)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Job Loss Chart:

Now I suppose you'll tell me that the CBO and Moody's are engaging in "speculation"? Or will the next argument be that the CBO is "partisan"?

You haven't shown me that I'm wrong about anything I've posted. You've simply claimed that I'm engaging in "speculation" (which is clearly false).
Ringo

"The CBO estimated"? Wow! Who can argue with that. Nope. No speculation there.

 

[Ringo84]

There's idle speculation and then there's educated estimates based on data available.

For all the overheated rhetoric about the stimulus and auto bailouts, this is the primary argument against them - "All speculation!"? This is the extent of Republicans on this board piling on and (trying to) prove me wrong about the stimulus? Pathetic!
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

This is what Obama has been dealing with for three years or so:

Ringo

 

[Saving Hawaii]

IN a nutshell, Stockman said the Federal government needs to focus on managing the budget and paying the bills. Reich said that even though teh Federal government can't afford to, it should pay for people to go back to work. I know that in my situation, I manage my budget and pay my bills and I do not pay for things that I can't afford. So I would have to with Stockman on this and hope he's wrong about the unemployment numbers.

You do misquote Robert Reich. The federal government can easily afford to put America back to work. What it lacks is the congressional willpower to do so. Government budgeting and household accounting are completely unlike. The government doesn't suffer from the fiscal constraints that regular people do, nor does it lack the ability to use monetary policy to support its economic goals. To compare the two is to compare apples and almonds. Even apples and oranges are too similar for the comparison. The two are completely unlike! The United States, at present moment, could easily use debt-financed spending to restore aggregate demand and put America back to work. That it chooses not to is solely the fault of our elected legislators who've put the interests of a handful of wealthy elites above the good they could do for working class Americans.

PS: The difference between Stockman and sitting Republican legislators is that the Republican legislators are advocating economic theories that have less evidential basis than voodoo economics. Expansionary austerity is nuts: been tried all over the world and failed virtually every time. The only exceptions to that rule were in situations completely unlike our own. Stockman understands that the austerity measures he's advocating are bad for the little man, but he'll do just fine. He doesn't care. I do.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

This is the first time I have ever heard someone say with a straight face Herbert Hoover was for austerity. Maybe their right, FDR had the Boulder Dam built and later as a joke decided it would be called the Hoover Dam, oh wait that's right... Hoover had the Boulder Dam built. Silly me.

Herbert Hoover was a classic austerity guy. Talk to his own Treasury Secretary who declared in the early days of the Depression that the United States should let 'creative destruction' do its work. Here's Andrew Mellon explaining the 'virtue' of creative destruction:

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people.”
​

The problem with Mellonism, espoused by Republicans today, isn't that it's entirely wrong. It's that the transition from the bursting of the bubble to a health economy is unbearably slow and tremendously wasteful. You permanently lose out on trillions of dollars of economic output and permanently depress economic output. You create long-lasting structural labor market problems by allowing the skills of perfectly competent workers to waste away. Mellonism will eventually work but in doing so it creates a tremendous amount of waste and lost opportunity.

Better that we not "liquidate" everything that the working man has to his name. They're not the ones that caused this disaster and they're not the ones who should be punished for it. Use pro-growth government policies to put Americans back to work. Now.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Reich also ignores the fact that many economists believe the FDR spending lengthened and worsened the depression, just as Obama's spending has resulted in higher unemployment for a lengthened period

Ohanian and Amity Shlaes? There's a handful of economists who support your view. Not "many". Definitely not "most". The reality is that a balance-sheet recession is an ugly thing. There's different kinds of economic maladies. When you're Ronald Reagan in the early '80s and the Federal Reserve is intentionally causing a deep recession to break inflation expectations, it's not a big deal. As soon as the Bank decides that enough damage has been done and lays off, the economy recovers with eagerness. When you're Barack Obama in 2009 and the Federal Reserve has set interest rates to 0% in an effort to boost economic activity and that ain't working, well you have a major problem on your hands and nothing that you do is going to work miracles. There are things that you could do to lessen the blow to the real economy and to shorten the duration of the disaster, but our current Congress is fully intent on deepening unemployment and "liquidating" working Americans, to use the old Mellonist terminology.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

You mean, like it did for Obama?

You have no call, in fact you have quite a bit of gall to accuse the Republicans of being unconcerned about the economy, let alone wanting it to be bad merely for their own victory at the polls. Talk about projection. The truth is that's exactly what the far left of the Democrat party wants - to trash the economy. Proof? Everything they've been doing ostensibly to "save" the economy. Pure insanity (from an economic perspective); pure genius (from an extreme radical leftist agenda).

Environmental regulations are not bad economics. Here's the simple math. We all have basic property rights, correct? Somebody wants to dredge their mining claim upstream from my house, they ruin my water and I sue them for degradation of my water. Somebody wants to open a coal power plant near my house, they ruin my air and I sue them for degradation of my air. This isn't incredibly complicated but it creates an absolute legal nightmare with an untold number of transgressions. The government, in the name of expediency, tells me that I can't sue the coal plant simply because its smokestack is belching tons of soot into the air. Cool. On the flip side of the same token the government enacts regulations requiring the coal plant to operate in a relatively clean manner, mitigating the amount of air pollution I'm forced to put up with.

That's the reality of our present world. The government is meddling with both sides of the coins in an attempt to improve efficiency because the court system is embarrassingly inefficient. Environmentalists, pushing for clean air and clean water regulations, aren't pushing "pure insanity"... at best they might come close to achieving a realistic balance between subsidies and penalties for pollution producers. At present it's primarily subsidies for pollution, but that's liable to change over the next 10-20 years.

 

[lordbt]

Herbert Hoover was a classic austerity guy. Talk to his own Treasury Secretary who declared in the early days of the Depression that the United States should let 'creative destruction' do its work. Here's Andrew Mellon explaining the 'virtue' of creative destruction:

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people.”
​

The problem with Mellonism, espoused by Republicans today, isn't that it's entirely wrong. It's that the transition from the bursting of the bubble to a health economy is unbearably slow and tremendously wasteful. You permanently lose out on trillions of dollars of economic output and permanently depress economic output. You create long-lasting structural labor market problems by allowing the skills of perfectly competent workers to waste away. Mellonism will eventually work but in doing so it creates a tremendous amount of waste and lost opportunity.

Better that we not "liquidate" everything that the working man has to his name. They're not the ones that caused this disaster and they're not the ones who should be punished for it.Use pro-growth government policies to put Americans back to work. Now .

Pro-growth government policies that put people back to work are those policies that remove government involvement from the free market. You, like your idol Obama have never created a single job. He, nor you, understand what motivates an employer to hire in the first place. He, like you, is only interested in punishing, taxing and demonizing those who understand how to put money to work.

Let me give you an example. Obama is constantly campaigning around the nation for the need to re-build Americas manufacturing base and infrastructure. He, like you, is stuck in the mindset of the depression and seek policies that work in developing nations, but not in developed ones. If you, or he, does not understand what caused manufacturing to decline in the US in the first place, how can you expect it to be reborn? He, and probably you, want high paying, unionized, green doh manufacturing jobs here in the US. What makes you think that those manufacturing jobs will be able to compete in a global market where other US manufacturing jobs could not?